Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 16 Mar 2007 21:42 In article <etdu1s$8qk_001(a)s986.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <1173976773.203668.217240(a)l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>On Mar 14, 11:50 am, jmfbah...(a)aol.com wrote: >>> In article <1173870480.508596.143...(a)n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, >>> "Martin Brown" <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>> >On Mar 13, 10:34 am, jmfbah...(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> >> This is the point. It will never be "correct" because the file >>> >> contains a checksummed listing of itself. >>> >>> >> <snip> >>> >>> >> Do the exercise. Then you will see what I'm talking about. >>> >>> >You really are determined to parade your ignorance. File checksums are >>> >trivial to make internally consistent. >>> >>> >At the simplest conceptual level you could define all files to have >>> >checksum=0 and add some fluff to the end of each one to make it so. In >>> >this case you only need to adjust theTAPE.DIRand since you know the >>> >effect of changing the bytes in the checksum representation on the >>> >checksum it is relatively easy to program a self consistent solution. >> >>> >then self consistent solutions can be found by SMOP. >>> >>> It isn't a goal to have the checksum ofTAPE.DIRcorrect. It was >>> a mandatory goal to have a directory of the tape on the tape. The >>> tradeoff to accomplish this goal was to have the checksum of >>> the fileTAPE.DIRnot match the checksum ofTAPE.DIRreported >>> inTAPE.DIR. >> >>You could so easily have done both if you had just an ounce of >>understanding. > >It was not possible to edit the tape as Ken would like to have >everyone believe. He has assumed that each file we put on the >tape was tape file; they were not. This was based on your claim about what you did. Now you have changed your story. It doesn't really matter because even with your new story, the checksum could have been correct. [....] >Now, I have tried to explain this to him but he doesn't seem to >understand how tapes physically looked. No, the only confusion I've had is which of your stories is the one to believe at any given instant. You have claimed things in direct contradiction. > He also seems to >assume that tapes were directory media but the are not; they >are unit record media. I have never ever eever said anything that at all implies this. > He keeps assuming that the TAPE.DIR >was one, and only one, record. It was not. It was also not >separated from the other files put on the tape by the >magtape equivalent of an EOF. Was there an IRG? If there was, it could have been changed. Not that it matters because if we believe your current story, the TAPE.DIR was not created from the actual tape. Since the TAPE.DIR was created before the tape was written, there is no need to do an edit write. BTW: There need not have been an IRG on the tape. A huge number of tapes have been written without IRGs. Whole companies stayed in business on reading tapes in one format and converting to another. A big part of their business was turning unblocked tapes into blocked ones. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: MassiveProng on 16 Mar 2007 23:07 On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:40:32 -0400, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> Gave us: >In article <87hcslhfqz.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, >thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk says... >> "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> writes: >> > Phil Carmody wrote: >> > > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> writes: >> > >>>> MassivelyWrong once again, Dimbulb. I was a member of the Apple >> > >>>> CPU development team (Nintendo PPC750 processor variants as well) >> > >>>> until Apple switched to x86. >> > >>> >> > >>>Hmmm, why were Apple buying G4s from us at Freescale if they >> > >>>made their own? >> > >> >> > >>Apple made none, idiot. >> > > Why were apply buying G4s from us at Freescale if they designed >> > > their own? >> > > If you have more than 1/4 of a brain you might be able to predict >> > > that I will probably narrow down the work you did "on" the G4 to be >> > > "filled in forms and bought them from Freescale". >> > >> > People with real lives don't have time for that sort of nonsense, >> > but we can easily understand why you do. >> >> I notice you don't doubt my conclusion. I notice that krw doesn't >> counter my conclusion either. > >Neither you nor your sister, Dimmie, are worth "countering". > >> I hope he found his form-filling fulfilling. > >You're so far off (with everything you've said so far) that you >haven't even hit the right side of the continent. He sure whopped you right upside da head tho. You... designed processors... SURE! Bwuahahahahahahahaha!
From: jmfbahciv on 17 Mar 2007 05:57 In article <eteaio$ecf$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <etdt34$8ss_003(a)s986.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <etbirc$3ko$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>In article <etbb6t$8qk_003(a)s881.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>[....] >>>>So how does the human race go from this "inventive" solution >>>>methods into production? Is there a name for the work >>>>which eliminates this requirement to tweak each item that comes >>>>off the production line? >>> >>>That process is called "engineering" or in some cases "manufacturing >>>engineering". Once the solution is found, procedures, script files and >>>software is written. In large scale manufacturing, whole new machines are >>>designed to do produce the product. >> >>Do those with mechanical engineering degrees do the work that >>figures out how those machines are designed and their placement >>on the factory floor? > >No. All mechanical engineers are complete idiots. It is where the >electronics engineers that are flunking out go to complete some degree. >Nobody in their right mind would ever let them design something important >like a factory. That job is much better left to someone with a degree in >quantum physics. > Sigh! So much for trying to have an adult conversation. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 17 Mar 2007 06:02 In article <b29c6$45faa09e$49ecf4e$12726(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: <snip> >Note to BAH. Neither krw nor I can make a silk purse >out of MP's stuff. I'm going to stop responding to >him now as there's no advance possible. Yea, I gave up a couple weeks' ago. His posts can't even be used to speak through him. /BAH
From: Phil Carmody on 17 Mar 2007 07:53
kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: > In article <87d539hfj5.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, > Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: > >> In article <878xdyikn8.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, > >> Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> >kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: > >> >> >I decided not to chip in and tell her about the IOCCC entry from > >> >> >a few years back which implemented exactly the scheme you're > >> >> >talking about - I thought that would prompt even more confusion > >> >> >from the senile one. > >> >> > >> >> Did they go with the two copies of the checksum or the "please ignore > >> >> this". > >> > > >> >The please ignore this method. See for yourself ;-) It's omoikane from > >> >http://www.ioccc.org/2004/ > >> > >> I can see problems with porting this code. It uses a 32 bit constant but > >> doesn't force the size of the variable it is used with. This is not a > >> good idea in any program. It is doubly bad in one like this where the > >> result needs to be 100% trustworthy. > > > >I see no problems porting the code - the porting just needs to change > >the types used to be the types expected. > > But those type declares are spinkled throughout the code. This is not > good "C" coding practice. It is far better to gather all the type > information inot one place. You can do something like this: > > > #define OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0 signed > #define OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0O unsigned > #define OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00 char > #define OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0OO single > #define OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0O0 long > #define OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00O /* lemmings go here */ > #define OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO000 ; > > > Then you can simply write: > > OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0 > OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00O > OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0O0 > OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0OOO > OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO000 > > When you need to declare a variable. I think you will agree that this is > much better coding practice. I will agree! Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./. |